Posted on 10/09/2013 7:23:31 AM PDT by LucianOfSamasota
The Democrats are chanting that Republicans must fully fund Obamacare because it is the law of the land, passed by Congress, signed by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Therefore, they say, it must be obeyed and can’t be altered by Republicans who want to defund it.
That argument is both wrong and hypocritical. Any federal law can be changed, repealed, amended or defunded by our legislative branch of government, Congress.
The Republican House wants to deal with the controversial huge “continuing resolution” bill in separate pieces, giving the OK to worthwhile federal spending purposes while leaving others (like Obamacare) without funds. Obama refuses to negotiate and demands a “clean” (blank-check) bill; his position is all-or-nothing-at-all.
Actually, the Supreme Court decision did not give a “clean” upholding of Obamacare. The court effectively rewrote the law by allowing states to opt out of Medicaid expansion, and other pieces of Obamacare are still being litigated in federal courts, such as the mandate that employer-required insurance must include objectionable abortifacient drugs.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
It’s not just the POTUS disobeying the law, so is Congress by not seeking articles of impeachment. Even if he won’t be removed, it is still a statement and proper procedure.
The house has ALWAYS had the power of the purse strings in their
hands alone....Obama, if he actually IS the constitutional law expert
he claims to be MUST know this. Unless of course he’s not really the
expert he claims to be....and is instead just another liar.
The Constitution orders the president to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. You’re our president is going around saying that we need to change immigration laws.
There was a time when the MSM happily trumpeted that no house can be bound by the actions of a previous house. Guess it’s not convenient now.
Thanks for posting this. Had not read her writing in awhile and signed up for e-mail. She is one SMART lady.
Being a hypocrite is a prerequisite for being a democrat/liberal/"journalist" (I know, one and the same, all of them).
Maybe he became a constitutional law “expert” so he could learn how to sidestep it and dismantle it.
Wait till after the midterms when we pick up more Senate seats. I don’t just want this bastard impeached - I want him in prison where he belongs.
bad law.......needs rectified.
Saul Alinsky showed him the methods for that a long time ago.
Considering nobody remembers him from Columbia and even
though he was listed as editor of the Harvard law review he didn’t
write a SINGLE REVIEW. He almost certainly had a stand in do all
work in his name and take all his tests while worshipped at the altar
of choom. Once he had his law license...acquired for him by his
academic doppleganger an “accident” was arranged and O stepped into
his new life. Then when he had to actually use his his license his
gross deficiency’s started to show. Eventually he surrendered his
law license to avoid having to explain.
It’s as good a theory about him as any other.
She is hitting it in the 10 ring. Show me ONE law that this administration is not selectively enforcing. ONE? The government printing office should publish a complete copy of the US Code, but this time, put an asterisk next to each law that is not selectively enforced and that we must fully comply with. There is nothing that makes a mockery of all laws quicker than selective enforcement. If you don’t want to enforce the law, repeal it or change it. All this is because Congress does not demand that the Executive enforce the laws they pass. The institution has abrogated their responsibilities.
“In April 2012, nine state attorneys general issued a memo listing 21 violations of law by the Obama administration, and now we have so many more examples. Obama is the one who doesn’t obey the law of the land.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/when-a-president-disobeys-the-law-of-the-land/#Eqrfy7IVdZuuaTbG.99
Congress is attempting to discharge its duties according to the Constitution. Obammy and his Dimocrat fellow travelers don’t give a damn about the Constitution.
Washington D.C. needs an enema!
When you live a life with little stress and everything is given to you, you fail to build character. When you fail to build character and have no empathy or sympathy for your fellow man it is a sure path to becoming a sociopath...
I told Mrs. JohnnyP yesterday that all this Obama stuff keeps building up but we can’t flush it.
“Generally, dereliction of duty refers to failure through negligence or obstinacy to perform one’s legal or moral duty to a reasonable expectation. In other words, it means willful or negligent failure to perform assigned duties or performing them in a culpably inefficient manner. Dereliction of duty is a specific offense in military law. “ (Quote from USLegal.com).
Dereliction of duty is an Impeachable Offense, as stipulated in the US Constitution. Dereliction of duty is also a US Military offense subject to a Courts Martial.
Will our sorry Congressional RINOs do their usual kid gloves, “boys will be boys” approach to Obama’s numerous violations of the US Constitution, or will they FINALLY draw up The Articles of Impeachment for B. Hussein Obama?
“L’etat, c’est moi.” — Hussein
I've got a really STUPID question. If the HOUSE is the chamber that holds the money purse, how can Andrea Mitchell (or ObooHoo for that matter) say that their entitlements, which have YET TO BE FUNDED, are "non-negotiable"?
Don't they have the argument backwards? Isn't the guy with the money the one you should be negotiating with, not the one who needs it?
I mean, I'm not an Economics or Business major; I'm only a guy with an overactive brain, but it would seem to me that if I wanted to finance something and I walk into a bank, I am not in the position to be making DEMANDS.
The bank has the money. I want the money. I am the one that needs to negotiate (convince the bank) to loan me the money.
Obama DEMANDS that the chamber with the purse give HIM the money to finance his projects and then tells them that he will NOT NEGOTIATE!
EXCUSE me, but you're not in a POSITION to negotiate fool. I HAVE THE MONEY; all you have is 10,000 pages of worthless paper.
Now, who's going to negotiate?
I have another theory. Obama never attended any universities. Because they are liberal bastions, anything to support the ideology can be done.
ID’s were created, positions created, he taught constitutional law, but the only thing anyone has seen is his Alinsky drawing.
He smoked grass and hung out in an apartment by the school so there would be visibility, but no dorm information or roommate?
he didn’t teach anything
he was a lecturer, probably a guest lecturer or something
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.